Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/North Weald Flyer


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   delete. "Useful" and "very important" are not valid reasons for keeping the article. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  01:57, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

North Weald Flyer

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

New bus route (started 6th Feb), does not show evidence of notability, a quick google search confirms this. Appears to be a replacement for route 55, recently deleted via Afd Jenuk1985  |  Talk  16:22, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Why dont we create an article for the buggy carriage route from Demopolis to Livingston? Letsdrinktea (talk) 17:38, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep This page is very important. Especially as it is a different kind of bus route being hail and ride and for being a flyer service. Why not delete pages to do with motorways, A-roads, train services or other forms or transport routes. People find infomation on bus routes interesting and very useful, just as useful as pages on motorway routes or train routes. Alex12341000 18:00, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete So you say that the bus company reposted the route under a different title, on their website? Seriously...How are individual bus routes to be seen as notable without tons of coverage?  We don't have articles on train services, etc., while motorways and many lesser roads are generally seen as notable because they get tons of coverage.  USEFUL isn't a reason to keep, and I can't imagine any valid reasons.  Nyttend (talk) 20:06, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Bus routes are just as useful as motorways or train routes. If your going to delete it anyway, just delete it now to save all the aggrovation. The page took me ages to create but never mind. Also, there are loads of other pages about single bus routes, so delete them aswell.Alex12341000 20:53, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment The above user has "voted" twice. Jenuk1985  |  Talk  21:01, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Motorways, major roads and railways are permanent structures and services. Bus companies can last a long time. Bus routes, on the other hand, are rather transient. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a directory - or travel guide. I do find information on bus routes useful, as I sometimes have to get to rather obscure parts of the country, but I use local sources not Wikipedia for this. Some other of the routes posted by the creator of this article have in fact been short term routes and they and others might bear consideration for deletion too. Peridon (talk) 20:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Please note: this is not a vote, but you still should not put Keep in bold on more than one post. Others should be Comment Peridon (talk) 20:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep I do not know about the UK, but most of the bus routes in NYC I am familiar with have been constant for many times the lifespan of Wikipedia. The bus I took to high school still runs there, though the route and timings have changed slightly. (& each time they change it, there's a public hearing & it's in the local papers). I think these services in general are of sufficient interest and geographic significance that all scheduled bus routes intended to be permanent should be considered notable. there will always be sources. DGG (talk) 03:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * In my area, I can think of one route that hasn't changed routeing or number (and/or operator) in the last 10 years (and even there I'm not so sure about the other end of the route). There are some classic unchanged routes in the UK. (This one isn't one of them.) UK bus operation is rather more fluid, perhaps. We possibly have a lot more proportionally than the USA does, too. Peridon (talk) 18:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete bus routes aren't notable. Secret account 14:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.